Philanthropy Expert Says Conservatives Are More Generous

BY FRANK BRIEADDY

SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is about to become the darling of the religious right wing in America -- and it's making him nervous.

The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts, Brooks has written a book that concludes religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income.

In the book, to be released later this month, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives -- from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services -- make conservatives more generous than liberals.

When it comes to helping the needy, Brooks writes: "For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice."

Months before those words came off the press, news of his research reached the producers of ABC's "20/20." They filmed extensive interviews with Brooks to be aired next month in a one-hour special dealing with charity and philanthropy.

The fact that ABC will focus on the political, rather than cultural, aspects of his book frightens him less than the potential for a call from Bill O'Reilly, Fox News' hard-hitting conservative commentator.

"I can say no if I want to," he said.

The truth, Brooks says, is that if an interview with O'Reilly means furthering his message that America needs more charity -- especially from those who call themselves liberal -- he'd probably do it.

For the record, Brooks, 42, has been registered in the past as a Democrat, then a Republican, but now lists himself as independent, explaining, "I have no comfortable political home."

Since 2003 he has been director of nonprofit studies for Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.

He has lectured in Spain and Russia and makes about 50 appearances a year at professional conferences around the world.

Outside professional circles, he's best known for his regular op-ed columns in The Wall Street Journal (13 over the past 18 months) on topics that stray a bit from his philanthropy expertise.

One noted that people who drink alcohol moderately are more successful and charitable than those who don't (like him). Another observed that liberals are having fewer babies than conservatives, which will reduce liberals' impact on politics over time because children generally mimic their parents.

Brooks is a behavioral economist by training who researches the relationship between what people do -- aside from their paid work -- why they do it, and its economic impact.

He's a number cruncher who relied primarily on 10 databases assembled over the past decade, mostly from scientific surveys. The data are adjusted for variables such as age, gender, race and income to draw fine-point conclusions.

His Wall Street Journal pieces are researched, but a little light. His book, he says, is carefully documented to withstand the scrutiny of other academics, which he said he encourages.

The book's basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.

Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money.

Such an attitude, he writes, not only shortchanges the nonprofits but also diminishes the positive fallout of giving, including personal health, wealth and happiness for the donor and overall economic growth. All of this, he said, he backs up with statistical analysis.

"These are not the sort of conclusions I ever thought I would reach when I started looking at charitable giving in graduate school, 10 years ago," he writes in the introduction. "I have to admit I probably would have hated what I have to say in this book."

Still, he says it forcefully, pointing out that liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood.

In an interview, Brooks says he recognizes the need for government entitlement programs, such as welfare. But in the book he finds fault with all sorts of government social spending, including entitlements.

Repeatedly he cites and disputes a line from a Ralph Nader speech to the NAACP in 2000: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity."

Leslie Lenkowsky, professor of public affairs and philanthropic studies at Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy, has not read Brooks' book but is familiar with his research and findings. He says Brooks' impact could be as great as that of Harvard professor Robert D. Putnam, who wrote the 2000 best-seller "Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community," setting off a national discussion about the decline of participation in group activities and its effect on society.

Harvey Mansfield, professor of government at Harvard University and 2004 recipient of the National Humanities Medal, does not know Brooks personally but has read the book.

"His main finding is quite startling, that the people who talk the most about caring actually fork over the least," he said. "But beyond this finding I thought his analysis was extremely good, especially for an economist. He thinks very well about the reason for this and reflects about politics and morals in a way most economists do their best to avoid."

Brooks says he started the book as an academic treatise, then tightened the documentation and punched up the prose when his colleagues and editor convinced him it would sell better and generate more discussion if he did.

To make his point forcefully, Brooks admits he cut out a lot of qualifying information.

"I know I'm going to get yelled at a lot with this book," he said. "But when you say something big and new, you're going to get yelled at."

SOME OF BROOKS' FINDINGS

Conservatives outgive liberals in every measurable way.

Charity is good for your health.

Religious people are more charitable -- including with secular donations -- than secularists.

People who drink alcohol moderately are more charitable than those who don't drink.

Nov. 14, 2006

(Frank Brieaddy is a staff writer for The Post-Standard of Syracuse, N.Y. He can be contacted at fbrieaddy@syracuse.com.)

When it comes to helping the needy, Brooks writes: "For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice."

w00t!! (We Own the Other Team)

I've preordered this book! I can't wait to throw some well annotated facts in the face of some people I know.

The book's basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.

This should make him terribly popular in the mrdia!

7
posted on 11/16/2006 11:29:38 AM PST
by Onelifetogive
(* I'm not an economist, but I play one on the Internet!)

"For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice."

I recall that when Al Gore was running back in 2000, his tax return showed that with an income well up in the 7 figures, he and Tipper only managed to spend $300 on charity. Hell, Hillary gave more than that in used underwere alone. :~))

"After all they [the Clintons] generously gave their used underwear to charity." Did they claim it as a tax deduction? Doing tax-exempt charity means forcing others [taxpayers] to participate in one's donation. Donating other people's money is a reprehensible behavior normally associated with the lefties.

Liberals and Conservatives are just about equally generous to those in need. The difference is that Conservatives are generous with THEIR OWN money, while Liberals are always very generous with OTHER PEOPLE'S money.

The stereotype is that Liberals are more caring and generous because they want to "help the poor". But they don't really. They want to pass the responsibility of the poor from their own shoulders to the government's. That way, when people continue to live in poverty, they can sit back and say its not their fault, its the government's. So not only do they have to do nothing for the poor, they also get to feel smugly self-righteous because they ascribe to the "compassionate" philosophy of liberalism.

Conservatives are quite the opposite. We think it is a personal responsibility to help the poor, which is why we give more.

14
posted on 11/16/2006 11:34:14 AM PST
by The Blitherer
(In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is.)

Watch for the hard left to trot out Gates and Buffett for giving some $50 billion combined. But they will forget to remind us that both men succeeded in such generosity by avoiding the taxes that would be due upon their deaths - a tax they both advocate but apparently sought to avoid. I guess they thought they could better direct their money than turning it over to the government.

I could have told you this without his book, but his book is a very useful tool for support on our side. I work for a charity that supports children in the third world. I guarantee you that 90% plus of the workers and donors are hard core conservatives. I am also a student at a local university that is overwhelmingly liberal both in faculty and students. When I am in class, I always hear the liberal b.s. of that we do not do enough and we need to raise taxes. I love springing on the class that it is conservatives that overwhelming give and do not need the government compulsion that liberals seem to need. I also point out the tax returns of prominent liberals like Gore and Clinton that are so charitably lite compared to conservatives.

I love to quote them the line from a 'Police' song from the 80's (Driven to Tears) 'seems when some innocent dies, all we can do is offer them some photo on some magazine, too many cameras and not enough food, this is what we see'

I point out it is the liberals that are taking the photos and the conservatives that are feeding the poor.

I could have told you this without his book, but his book is a very useful tool for support on our side. I work for a charity that supports children in the third world. I guarantee you that 90% plus of the workers and donors are hard core conservatives. I am also a student at a local university that is overwhelmingly liberal both in faculty and students. When I am in class, I always hear the liberal b.s. of that we do not do enough and we need to raise taxes. I love springing on the class that it is conservatives that overwhelming give and do not need the government compulsion that liberals seem to need. I also point out the tax returns of prominent liberals like Gore and Clinton that are so charitably lite compared to conservatives.

I love to quote them the line from a 'Police' song from the 80's (Driven to Tears) 'seems when some innocent dies, all we can do is offer them some photo on some magazine, too many cameras and not enough food, this is what we see'

I point out it is the liberals that are taking the photos and the conservatives that are feeding the poor.

When I am in class, I always hear the liberal b.s. of that we do not do enough and we need to raise taxes. I love springing on the class that it is conservatives that overwhelming give and do not need the government compulsion that liberals seem to need.

Have you been kicked out yet?

;-)

23
posted on 11/16/2006 11:39:20 AM PST
by The Blitherer
(In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is.)

"People who drink alcohol moderately are more charitable than those who don't drink."

I'm going to take a wild guess on this one. People who drink moderately are probably more extroverted than people who don't drink at all. Extroverts are by their nature more involved with others. It wouldn't be surprising to find that they would be more inclined to want to help those that they perceive in need.

I am really looking forward to reading this book.

28
posted on 11/16/2006 11:43:50 AM PST
by freespirited
(The MSM is the root of all evil.)

I don't like threads like this. We are not supposed to brag or be full of ourselves for giving money to charity especially laughing at those who don't (please explain what is conservative or Christian about that). I don't know why they have to write a book on the subject. This is a horrible post. I believe arrogance is not a very good thing. We should just give more money to charity including myself. This is weird. My parents always said that you should do things because you want to not to receive praise. I believe we should think about that for a while.

"I don't like threads like this. We are not supposed to brag or be full of ourselves for giving money to charity especially laughing at those who don't (please explain what is conservative or Christian about that)."

This is a political website. The leftists make false claims about conservatives. They're embodied in the claim that conservatives support starving children. Liberals and the left use other people's money and call it charity. Conservatives use their own.

The "we" here is conservatives. No one in particular is bragging about, or even mentioning their charitable activities. The theme is charity vs forced redistribution scheme, and this study is part of the fight between those 2 activities. Those promoting forced redistribution say that conservatives are not charitable. This study shows they, the leftists are mistaken, or lying.

I don't like threads like this. We are not supposed to brag or be full of ourselves for giving money to charity especially laughing at those who don't (please explain what is conservative or Christian about that). I don't know why they have to write a book on the subject. This is a horrible post. I believe arrogance is not a very good thing. We should just give more money to charity including myself. This is weird. My parents always said that you should do things because you want to not to receive praise. I believe we should think about that for a while.

I understand your point about anonymous charitable giving but nobody is bragging here. This is an economist who studies human economic behavior outside of work. He is not looking to praise conservatives, but simply to document their charitable behavior.

Also, no one is laughing at those that don't. However, I think it's valid to point out that those complaining about the speck in my eye ignore the log in their own.

No-one is looking for praise for their individual acts of charity but I think, as a group, we can be proud that denizens of FReerepublic are among the most generous.

When I talk to others about this, I never bring up my own charitable giving at all. I defend my conservative brothers and sisters against false charges. I never laugh at the lack of charitable giving by the opposition, just point out the difference. I try to do it in an edifying way, but I have to confess, I do enjoy it. I understand your concerns,which seems to be 'don't throw stones at those that who do not give', but we can point out that they are throwing around false accusations / bad information.

Yet we must consider the implications of the progressive experiment: While it is true that causing the government to seize assets from one to give them to another can be derided as a legalized form of theftjust as lottos can be derided as promoting the get rich quick mentalitythe true effects of a pursuit of "social justice" are far more perverse.

Most tellingly, it explicitly promotes a mentality of entitlement that robs the "poor" of even their capacity to be thankful. If you are getting your "due" then why should you be thankful? And when is "getting you due" ever enough is someone has more? In truth, the Progressive experiment rises and falls politically on its ability to inspire envy.

Or put another way: Marx was a liar who knew perfectly well that social theory would be the most suitable opiate of the masses ... for by means of it their passions could be mobilized without limitations raised by morality or theology.

What does faith really have to compare to the allure of social theory? The truth? People hate the truth because the truth does more than set them free: it exposes them to their naked sin and wickedness if they are not deluded. People want to feel good about themselves so they believe anything that keeps them from having to face truth, either about God or themselves.

To best understand the collapse of western civilization and why liberality is not a strong trait among those we incorrectly deem to be liberals one need only see how this bait-and-switchwhereby social justice to groups and entities has displaced justice to Personshas replaced a core set of values that promotes literal self government (i.e. control of your self and your appetites in accordance to informed conscience) with a core set of values that elevates self and self expression.

We have replaced self governance (of which true charity is an expression) with relying on elected and appointed officials to manage our affairs FOR us. Any wonder why our "poor" are just as surly and greedy as our rich ever were?

.."People who drink alcohol moderately are more charitable than those who don't drink".

The next time the head of the finance committee stands in front of the congregation and says..."Buy one less bottle of wine and give the money to church" I will quote the above statement. The bottle of wine does not cause me to give less!

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.